Thursday, July 30, 2015

“Death
to America!”
scream Iranians who have just negotiated an agreement that has won them invaluable
concessions from Americans, which includes the releasing of over $100 billion
in assets that had been frozen. That deal assures that in fifteen years or less
– a long time for an ADHD country such as ours, but a short time for a patient
Islamist – the Mullahs who govern Iran will be able to get the
“bomb.” Keep in mind, these are the people who besides wishing us dead have
called for the annihilation of Israel.

At
home, debt and future entitlements, which have been kicked down the road for
decades, are forecast to impoverish future generations. The Democrat front
runner warned against the “gig economy” and the “erosion of work-place
protections.” Is her interest protecting consumers, or is it cronyism designed
to safeguard existing businesses and regulators? We have been warned that
man-caused global warming will cause the planet’s destruction…unless we
purchase Tesla’s, Prius’ and solar panels, with the support of tax payers – effectively
a regressive tax, with the wealthy benefitting at the expense of the middle
class. Technology has made life easier, but it has also given government and
others the ability to monitor our daily lives. Our politics are characterized
by division, polarization and cronyism. Racism and class warfare negate any
attempts at community outreach.

The
Federal Reserve has kept interest rates at essentially zero for six and a half
years. There will be a price to pay for that decision, but no one knows what it
will be. As a planet, we face dangerous problems, and I don’t mean climate
change attributable to man, but the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. We show concern for gays and transgenders,
which is a good, but we ignore failing inner-city schools and the decline of two-parent
households in lower-income areas? Wealth and income gaps have widened, ironic
victims of redistribution policies. Our economy sputters along on three
cylinders? One presidential candidate proposes raising capital gains taxes,
despite a lack of sufficient savings on the part of retirees and our
underinvestment as a nation. It is an argument not designed to address a
problem. It is populist, political-speak meant to show concern about “inequality.”
Is an Apocalypse our future?

We
do face problems, many of them serious, as people have since the beginning of
time. But despite the “tsk-tsking” from scolds like me and others, our nation
has faced more perilous times. At no point in our history were we as divided as
we were in 1861. Four years later 700,000 Americans were dead, many dying for a
cause barely understood – just doing what their superiors ordered them to do.
To put those deaths in perspective, the population of the United States
was roughly one tenth the size it is today. Can anyone imagine seven million of
our youths dying violently over the next four years? The Great Depression,
which began with the stock market crash in 1929, saw unemployment rise to 25%. It
was the War that ended the hard times, not government relief programs. Germany and Japan, as enemies in common, served
to unify our nation, but it also meant that 19 million men and women served in
uniform, and 416,000 died.

In
the post-War years, another common enemy – Communism (and a welcome relief from
a decade and a half of Depression and War) – kept the nation unified in the
1950s. “We need someone to hate,” wrote John Steinbeck in Travels with Charley.
The Eisenhower years spelled a welcome respite. The ‘60s changed things. Vietnam,
Watergate and marches for Civil Rights destroyed any sense of common purpose.
Stagflation in the ‘70s added to the despair and the disjointedness that
characterized that era.

But
we survived those difficult years. Part of the reason was leadership. Great
Presidents have an indelible optimism. They use humor and charm. Their confidence
is innate and it is catching. It comes from the soul and the heart, not the
mind. Only two Presidents in my lifetime have had it – Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald
Reagan. (JFK may have had it, but he died too early.) FDR inherited a
Depression begun three years earlier. He kept hope alive and then led the
Country to victory in World War II. Reagan followed the dislocations of the 1960s
and the economic malaise of the 1970s. He left the Country stronger, spiritually
and financially. He restored dignity to the people. No matter how one felt
about the politics of either man, no one can deny the positive nature of their
character.

The
angst of the current period does reflect the existential threats we face. But
more importantly, it echoes a consequence of government impinging on people’s
ability to succeed and to fail. Regulations are used to advance political
agendas. They are no longer predictable or even commonsensical. The paternalistic
nature of the Administration can be seen in the “life of Julia” video and the “pajama
boy” ad. Such political sensitivities provide comfort to some, but they damage
the dignity that comes with work, personal responsibility and accountability. That
dread reflects a public school system that is more concerned with adults (union
members) than with students. Safety nets are important, but the tendency of
bureaucrats, who thrive on expanding government, is to make entitlements
ubiquitous. Work, when performed by those who have little or no education, is
not given the respect it deserves. As Arthur Brooks wrote in The
Conservative Heart: “All honest work is a sanctified pursuit.” What right
do elites have to demean the work of those they see as beneath them? Nowhere
are the differences between the statists and free marketers so prominent as in
the battle in New York
over Uber. The De Blasio Administration would manage the number of taxis. Uber
would let markets determine both price and availability.

Every
era has its challenges. Ours is no different. What bothers me is the lack of
concern regarding slipping moral standards. Poverty is accompanied by broken
families, yet government dismisses that as a problem. While I am not a regular
church-goer, faith deserves more respect than it gets. It helps people. In
2000, Robert Putnam, in a book entitled Bowling Alone, wrote about the
“strange disappearance of social capital and civic engagement in America.”

Nevertheless,
I suspect we will get through this period. It will take a leader who will speak
plainly and honestly about the good this nation has done, without ignoring or
white-washing its faults. It will take an optimist who recognizes that
government is necessary to secure our safety, adjudicate our laws and build and
maintain our infrastructure, but also one that acknowledges the intelligence
and inherent wisdom of the people. If such people appear on the scene, any
apocalypse can be postponed – perhaps forever.

Monday, July 27, 2015

A
crescendo is building for raising the federal minimum wage by 107%, from $7.25
an hour to $15.00. To be against it, according to those who support such a
move, is to favor inequality and unfairness – it is to show one’s Simon Legree
side. The $7.25 wage has been in place for six years; so it is understandable
why this tidal wave has been developing. But its implementation will have
negative consequences that are surely unintentional. Some perspective is
needed.

The
income gap has widened during the six years since the recession ended in mid
2009. That fact has little to do with the minimum wage and a lot to do with
government policies regarding taxes, regulation and interest rates. A front-page
article in Saturday’s New York Times detailed the gloomy news. While
employers have added 200,000 jobs a month and the official jobless rate is at a
post-recession low of 5.3%, the labor participation rate (62.6%) is at the
lowest level since the Carter years. Six years into economic recovery there are
fifteen million Americans on Social Security disability insurance, more than
when the recession ended. Forty percent more people are on food stamps than six
years ago. Work requirements, which were part of the 1996 Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, were waived in 2012 by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. And for the first time in the nation’s
history, or at least during a time of economic recovery, more small businesses
are closing than opening. And now government wants to fuel this fire by
mandating a doubling of the minimum wage?

Unlike
government, businesses face competition. Globalization and technology force
them to adapt. In 1970, more than a quarter of U.S. employees worked in
manufacturing. Today, it is less than ten percent. The slide began well before
the rise of China
in the 1990s. The decline in U.S.
manufacturing jobs is not simply a consequence of businesses looking overseas
for cheap labor. The real reason has been technology. Supporting that
conclusion, a study last year by the Boston Consulting Group showed
manufacturing jobs, as a percent of total employment, are declining in
developing countries like Brazil,
China and India.

The
technology impact on manufacturing is now affecting the service industries –
the segment of the economy where most of the minimum wage jobs lie. The Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that nonfarm payrolls in the U.S. at the end
of 2014 amounted to 140,592,000, with 77,207,000 (54.9%) being hourly workers.
(Keep in mind, the number of Americans between the ages of 16 and 65 is about
225,000,000.) Among hourly workers, 2,992,000 (or 3.9%) were employed at the
minimum wage or lower. That works out to 2.1% of all workers. (Those who work
for less than minimum wage are employees who rely on tips, certain part-time
workers and special-needs cases).

The
BLS report noted: “The percentage of hourly workers paid wages at or below the
federal minimum wage was little different among major race and ethnicity
groups.” Blacks and Whites had slightly higher percentages than Hispanic or
Asian workers. Age was the biggest difference. Seventy percent of those making
the minimum wage or less are between the ages of 16 and 24.

The
numbers suggest that a large percentage of minimum wage jobs are the teen-age
children of middle class and upper-income families. Many of the rest are
starter jobs – the kind we all remember when first we went to work. Estimates
are that an increase in the minimum wage to $15 per hour will cost 500,000
jobs. I suspect it may be more.

Technology
has already replaced many service-sector jobs. In some restaurants, one can
order on I-Pads. Technology has replaced many secretarial jobs. The internet
has made it easier to form a corporation and it has reduced the time for
research. Travel agents have become an endangered species. The President has
suggested that the servicing of smaller 401K and IRA accounts should be
automated. Three weeks ago, when my wife was recovering from a fall, robots
delivered medicines to her hospital floor. Technology will continue to replace
jobs. It is one reason why STEM jobs have been the best paying for recent
college graduates. David Brooks wrote recently in the New York Times:
“If you raise the price on a worker, employers will hire fewer and you’ll end
up hurting the people you meant to help.”

When
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signaled his support for the higher minimum
wage, he disingenuously said: “You cannot live and support a family of four on
$18,000 a year in the state of New
York.” (The State of New York’s minimum wage is $8.75 per hour.)
His statement was purely political, as were similar endorsements from Hillary
Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. There are few families of four
dependent on a sole provider making the minimum wage. Those jobs, as I wrote,
are mostly held by the young – teenagers or young people starting a career. It
is jobs, not raising the minimum wage that will help the poor. Raising the
minimum wage will not narrow the income gap. It will cost jobs and force some
businesses to close. It is not the panacea it is claimed and it detracts from
the real task – job creation.

No
one wants anyone to be subjected to a life of substandard compensation. But we
should all want everyone to work. The problem with government establishing
wages, rather than markets, is that they cannot anticipate the consequences of
their action – businesses closing, technology replacing labor, or the shipping
of jobs overseas.

Government
should concentrate on job growth. Policies should encourage business formations
and economic growth. A job brings pride and happiness. Do you remember your
first job – the first time some person actually paid you for work performed? I
remember mine. I was hired to drive half a dozen cows every evening from the
pasture across from our house to the barn of the farmer that owned them a mile
down the road. It took a little over an hour and I was paid $.25.
Interestingly, this was about thirteen years after the first minimum wage bill
was passed in 1938 which set the hourly rate at $.25. The minimum rate never
played a role. I was just happy to think Mr. Nagle valued my work enough to pay
me hard cash!

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Words
have meanings, which is why those who read newspapers and op-eds and listen to
pundits must approach declarations and arguments with a dose of caveat emptor. The Left claims that the
goal of the Right is “unfettered” capitalism, while smugly speaking of
“progressive” capitalism. To be unfettered means to be totally free from
restraint, to be unleashed. The definition of the word “progressive,” when used
as an adjective refers to something that is changing gradually, that is
progressing in stages. The adjectives may or may not accurately reflect the
intent of the speaker or writer, so it is necessary to place the words in
context. The Left is clever: “progressive” has a soft and approachable feel,
while “unfettered” has a harsh and uncompromising tone.

Conservatives
are not looking for an economy swaddled in anarchy. They believe in safety
nets. They recognize that many regulations serve society well by protecting
consumers from damaged or spoiled goods and from unscrupulous manufacturers and
marketers. On the other hand, they also know that bureaucracies are
self-perpetuating – that job security for a bureaucrat is building a bigger
department, adding more rules and regulations. (The 2012 Federal Register added
78,961 pages to the 1.4 million pages that had been added over the previous
twenty years! As of this April, the federal tax code comprised 74,608 pages!)
The Right also knows that cronyism serves both politicians and favored
industries, and that it does so without regard to competition and
consumers. The Right is not asking for
unfettered capitalism; they are asking for relief from regulation that stifles
innovation, hinders competition and hampers economic growth.

The
Left does not want “progressive” or gradual change in capitalism. Coming out of
the 2008-2009 recession, Democrats raised taxes, expanded entitlements and
increased regulation. They have supported public unions, at the expense of
students and entrepreneurs; they increased the national debt. The result has
been subpar economic growth. They disparage the Reagan economy by using terms
like “trickle-down” economics, knowing that any phrase that has the word “trickle”
conjures something insignificant. (“Trickle-down” does, however, describe the
consequence of redistribution.) The Left talks about “equality” and “fairness,”
which have vague and amorphous meanings – like Humpty Dumpty, they mean what
they want them to mean.

What
started me on this issue was a recent book by Arthur Brooks entitled The
Conservative Heart. Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise
Institute. His voice has been the principal one in explaining the virtue of
conservativism. Conservativism, especially free market capitalism, has taken a
beating since the credit crisis of 2007-2008. Yet it has been the policies of
conservativism – family, faith, community, work and free markets – that are
responsible for the significant decline in global poverty over the past twenty
years. Like Rodney Dangerfield, conservatives get little respect. In its stead
have risen progressives, like President Obama, Senator Elizabeth Warren and New
York Mayor, Bill de Blasio.

Mr.
Brooks makes the moral case for conservativism and capitalism. He points out
that the number of people living in poverty – adjusted for inflation – has
declined 80% since 1970. He cites five reasons for the decline: free trade,
globalization, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship. Mr.
Brooks credits the role played by the United States in the aftermath of
World War II. He also notes that poverty rates in the U.S. have not
declined since the mid 1960s when the “war on poverty” was launched by
President Lyndon Johnson. While American-style free-enterprise was helping
people in Asia and Eastern Europe, our
domestic social-welfare system stymied similar efforts at home. (He does
acknowledge that what we call poverty today is not as dire as what it was fifty
years ago. Nevertheless, government statistics show no improvement in poverty
numbers.)

In
2008, then candidate Obama ran on the slogan “change you can believe in.” He
said he wanted to “roll back the Bush years” and “to fundamentally transform America.” He
accelerated our march toward a welfare state. Our relations with allies
worsened; our enemies view us as weaker. Dodd-Frank added over 2,000 pages to
the federal register, as did the Affordable Care Act. Big banks have become
even bigger and the number of small banks has decreased. For the first time in
our history, more small businesses have closed than have opened While birth
control is now required for Sisters of the Poor, healthcare has become spottier
for seniors. We hail Caitlyn (aka Bruce) Jenner as a hero, but make it more
difficult for innovators like Uber. Charter schools have expanded, but over the
objections of teacher’s unions and politicians who would rather regulate than
educate. Despite Barack Obama being America’s first African-American
President, racism has intensified. Unemployment has declined, but the
work-force participation remains at forty-year lows. While the economy has
recovered, millions of people have been added to food stamp programs and
disability rolls. Income and wealth gaps have widened. Has all this been good
for our pursuit of happiness?

The
Right needs to do a better job in getting out their message. Their emphasis on
meaningful work, family, faith and community do help people in their pursuit of
happiness, as Arthur Brooks describes so well in his book. Who is happier – the
welfare recipient who depends on government for his basic needs, or the
individual who has a job, with the possibilities it offers?

One
reason conservatives find it hard to show compassion is that, in confronting
reality, they emphasize the risks of too much debt, the coming bankruptcy of
entitlement programs and the importance of moral character. All are important,
but consequently they come across as martinets, not as compassionate persons.
Conservatives promise opportunity – a good education and equality before the
law – but not results. They know that outcomes are dependent on more than just
opportunity – that aspiration, ability, a willingness to work hard, effort and
discipline are integral to success. The Left shies away from demanding personal
responsibility. They require equality of opportunity, but also in outcomes.
Theirs is a process, which when taken to extremes, leads to the world Kurt
Vonnegut portrayed in his short story, “Harrison Bergeron.”

Words
do have meanings and it is important that conservatives explain simply and
understandably the role free-market capitalism played in eradicating much of
the globe’s poverty. They see individuals as assets that can help themselves,
while bettering their communities. It is an optimistic vision, but also
realistic. It is not the message that needs fixing; it is the messaging.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Places
of sanctuary date to Biblical times. When the twelve tribes of Israel were
sent to the Promised Land, the Levites were the one tribe not given a specific
area. Instead their people were distributed throughout the land, in forty-eight
cities that would become part of their heritage. Six of those cities were
designated as places of refuge – principally for those who had committed murder
unintentionally. That concept of forgiveness and protection in the Jewish faith
descended to Christianity, where sinners are told they can find refuge in
Christ. Consequently, churches and synagogues have long provided sanctuary.

In
the United States,
sanctuary cities (formed in the 1980s) were to shelter illegal immigrants from
federal immigration laws. Like so many ideas coming from the Left, this one,
while well intentioned, has in practice served to protect criminals as well as
hapless illegal immigrants who are otherwise innocent.

What
caused the phrase “sanctuary cities” to be on the lips of millions of Americans
this week was the shooting death three weeks ago in San Francisco of Kathryn
Steinle. While walking on Pier 14 in the Embarcadero with her father, she was
struck by a bullet in the back, dying two hours later. The weapon was allegedly
fired by convicted felon, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. Ms. Steinle was a
32-year old resident of San Francisco
when she was wantonly killed. Mr. Lopez-Sanchez is a Mexican national, living
as an illegal alien in San Francisco.
He had been deported five times for a variety of crimes. It has been reported,
but not confirmed, that the gun used was stolen from a federal law-enforcement
agent. San Francisco,
as will come as no surprise, is a sanctuary city. Responsibility for his
persistent resurfacing will be passed from the city to the state to the
federals like a hot potato. History suggests no one will fess up.

This
murder has further divided a partisan country. Bill O’Reilly spoke of proposing
a “Kate’s Law,” which would set up mandatory penalties for deported felons who
return illegally to the United
States. On the other side, Raven-Symoné,
co-host of CNN’s The View, suggested
Ms. Steinle’s death was “part of a vast conspiracy theory to increase [Donald]
Trump’s popularity.” (Donald Trump, in my opinion, is a world-class jerk, which
was seen in his insulting comments about John McCain.) Nevertheless, Ms.
Raven-Symoné and Mr. Trump seem cast from the same mold. Regardless, someone
should remind the President that White women’s lives matter too.

The
reason sanctuary cities in the U.S.
came into being in the early 1980s reflected a complexity that was different
from Biblical times. The offering of refuge to an immigrant today, whose only
crime was crossing the border illegally, might be seen as humanitarian. But
when the same offer is made to a convicted felon it becomes foolhardy and, as
the Steinle family discovered, deadly dangerous. Communication technology today
is such that there should be no excuse for intelligence to fall victim to a
false sense of mercy. Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was a seven-time felon and five-time
deportee. He was obviously not the sort of individual who would add to the
quality that distinguishes America.
He had his chance, and he blew it. Sanctuary city or not, the City of San Francisco, working
with state and federal officials should never have allowed him back.

Los Angeles became the first city in the United States to designate itself a
sanctuary city. They did so in 1979; so the concept in U.S.
officialdom is relatively new, for an idea that dates back more than 2000
years. The policy was adopted to prevent police from inquiring about the
immigration status of arrestees. Since that time, 276 U.S. cities have so
designated themselves, including Baltimore, Cambridge, Chicago, Denver,
Detroit, Houston, Minneapolis, New Haven, New York, San Francisco and
Washington. Through his Priority Enforcement Program, the President abetted the
situation. That program allows local officials to disregard ICE (Immigration
Customs Enforcement) notifications of deportable aliens in their custody.
Protecting the privacy of citizens is important in a democratic society, but so
is protecting the innocent from the criminally inclined. The authorities in San Francisco saw fit to
protect the privacy of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez, but not the life of Ms. Steinle. That
was, obviously, wrong.

The
hoopla over sanctuary cities cannot be divorced from the debate regarding
immigration. As Donald Trump discovered, immigration is an issue not only
sensitive, but galvanizing. In my opinion, Mr. Trump is akin to a Nova; he will
fall in the polls as fast as he has risen. Nevertheless, it is an issue that he
has brought to the surface. The subject of immigration has confounded every
President from Reagan to Obama and will not go away. Personally, I am a fan of
relatively open borders, as I believe the infusion of new blood prevents our
nation from stagnating. But I would also suggest we have too many of the
illegal variety and not enough of the legal. Illegal felons and convicted
felons are allowed to take refuge in some of our great cities. At the same
time, foreign graduates of our colleges and universities are not so easily
granted citizenship, even when required to submit to rigorous background
checks. To coin a phrase, there’s something wrong with this picture.

Comprehensive
immigration reform is needed. While borders should be tightened, we must also
be more open to those who legally want to come to our shores and who have the
qualifications to better our country. Doors through which legal immigrants can
enter should be wider and the process more efficient. Sanctuary cities should
be allowed, but local laws and protocols should be superseded by federal
immigration laws.

In
Exodus Chapter 21, verses 13-15 cover the subject: “…if a man come
presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him
from mine altar, that he might die.” “And if a man lie not in wait, but God
deliver him into his hand, then I shall appoint a place whither he shall flee.”
Thrashing one’s way through ‘thous,’ ‘shalts’ and ‘withers’ a reader can
comprehend that a harsh God, a few thousand years ago, offered sanctuary.

Sanctuaries
have not always lived up to their names, as Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas
Becket discovered when one of Henry II’s men killed him on his altar in 1170.
Today, the victims are too often the innocent, while too often the perpetrators
are those with past convictions. Harboring refugees is one thing, allowing
criminals, including killers, to roam free is quite another. Common sense
should dictate laws governing sanctuary cities.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

By
all accounts, the Pope is a man who cares deeply for the world’s poor. But he
is less sound when it comes to matters of history and economics.

Like
any vocation, capitalism is a pyramid, with a few successful people at the top.
It is like an army or a ship, where
there is one commander. It is similar to sports and entertainment. Just as
there is only one CEO at a company, there is only one Kobe Bryant and one
Taylor Swift. There is only one Pope. By definition, success reflects
inequality – in aspiration, talent, effort and luck. Equality of opportunity is
a worthy goal. Equality in outcomes is not possible. It cannot be otherwise.
Those on the left who scream loudest about inequality are themselves often at
the pinnacle of a career – a success they would not have had in a flat society.

“Inequality”
is a political “hot-button” word. It plays well in societies addicted to
sound-bites and with people who lack perspective. What exactly do the words
“inequality” and “redistribution,” and the phrase “fairness economy” really
mean? Humpty Dumpty provided an answer when he said to Alice, “When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean – neither
more nor less.” Humpty Dumpty was referring to “glory,” but one may substitute
any number of words whose definitions, in their ambiguity, are convenient for
hedging politicians and moral relativists.

We
must remember democratic capitalism has, over time, done more to reduce poverty
than any other economic system, form of government, religion or church,
including the Catholic Church. Two years ago, “The Economist” estimated that
one billion people had been removed from the ranks of extreme poverty over the
previous twenty years because of trade and free-market capitalism. (Extreme
poverty, as measured by the World Bank, refers to those living on less than
$1.25 per day.) In 2011, researchers at the Brookings Institute concluded that
“…the world – even Sub-Saharan Africa – is in the midst of rapid poverty
reduction.” They credited economic growth brought on by globalization. The
collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in better
standards of living for millions of East Europeans. China’s incorporation of capitalist
ideas into Communism has, according to researchers at Yale, recorded “great
feats in poverty reduction.”

The
pursuit of profit is critical to a world that demands economic growth – a
necessity to accommodate the natural growth in population and to allow for the
eradication of poverty. Without profits, what incentives do people have to
invest time, labor and capital? Without profits, businesses cannot expand and
hire. Without profits, economies would grind to a halt, people would starve and
disease would run rampant.

Why,
then, did the Pope refer to profits as “the dung of the devil?” His remark was
that of a man combating 19th Century robber barons or tilting at
colonialism. The Western world depicted by Charles Dickens and Edith Wharton
was one that did take advantage of labor. Their novels starkly showed
societies’ inequalities. But today that world exists mainly in novels and
history books. European colonialism did take advantage of third world nations,
but it, too, died in the wake of World War II.

It
is government, not capitalism that abets inequality. Complexity in the tax code
works to the advantage of big corporations and the wealthy. Regulation is
supposed to aid the consumer, when in fact it too often is used to bar
competition. Challengers to the status quo like Uber run afoul of the Left.
So-called liberals claim their interest is to represent (in the case of Uber)
“contract workers,” when in truth they support unions and wealthy owners of cab
companies. European exploiters of labor and natural resources have been
replaced by governments run by totalitarian regimes, like we see in places like
Cuba and Venezuela, and countries recently visited by the Pope – Bolivia,
Ecuador and Paraguay.

Free
market capitalism is not the issue. It is rules in developed economies that
serve the wealthy and regulations designed to protect existing businesses. And
it is regimes that ignore the rule of law and that do not honor property
rights. Profits are not evil; they are necessary for the elimination of
poverty, but they only work in societies where citizens have the rights of a
free people. To blindly demean capitalism is to destroy the goose that laid the
golden egg.

Where
capitalism has failed is in extolling its virtues. Arthur Brooks, president of the
American Enterprise Institute, has done more than anyone to lay out the case
for moral capitalism. In a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal,
he spoke of the paradox between socialism and capitalism: the former has higher
ideals, but fails in practice, while capitalism succeeds in practice, even
though it is based on greed. But it succeeds, he noted, not because it is based
on greed, “but because the freedom to trade and do business with others is in
harmony with our God-given nature.” Mr. Brooks concluded: “In the capitalist
view, poor people aren’t liabilities to be managed by government; they are
human beings with untapped potential.”

Every
system needs critics, including free-market capitalism. It is why capitalism
works best within a framework of democracy. In this instance, the freedom to
criticize provides Left-wing populists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
the opportunity to disagree. A pluralistic society, voting in self-interest,
tends to rein in excess. But none of that should detract from the overwhelming
evidence that free market capitalism has done more to eliminate poverty than
anything else, including, as I wrote, the Church.

If
the Pope truly wanted to focus on raising the well-being of the four or five
hundred million of the earth’s population who still live on less than $1.25 per
day, he should focus on those governments who deprive their citizens of their
basic rights, including the right to succeed. He should call out those
governments that do not abide by the rule of law and that do not protect
private property. He should expound the moral case for democratic, free-market
capitalism.

Nature
is filled with wonder: The changing of the seasons; the life-cycles of plants
and animals; the symbiotic way in which all life co-exists. I am in awe when
considering that from single-celled, microscopic bits have emerged millions of
different forms of life. The Osprey, with its fierce yellow eyes, graceful
flight and sharp talons, is one of nature’s most beautiful creations.

They
are not uncommon, though the pesticide DDT and the then Coast Guard policy of
removing Osprey nests from channel markers came close to killing them off in
the 1950s-1960s. The banning of DDT in 1972 and a change in Coast Guard
policies permitted their survival. The recent return of Menhaden have allowed
them to thrive, at least in our part of Connecticut – the tidal marshes that
compose the estuary where the Connecticut River meets Long Island Sound. From
my dock I count 22 nests, most are located on GreatIsland, a marsh island that separates
the Back River from the Connecticut.
A nest was recently erected on the marsh in front of our house; another is in a
large tree three hundred yards to the north.

The
Osprey, like Hawks and Eagles are Raptors – birds of prey. The word raptor
derives from the Latin word, rapere,
meaning to seize or take by force. In ornithology, birds of prey have four
characteristics: excellent vision; strong, curved talons for catching and
killing fish; strong legs for holding what they have caught as they return to
the nest; and a strong, curved beak for tearing flesh. The Osprey is unique
among raptors in that its two outer toes are reversible. It is sometimes known
as a “Sea Hawk,” as it is the only raptor that dines exclusively on fish.

Ospreys
can reach two feet in length, with a six-foot wing span and weigh three to four
pounds. They soar high above the water. When a fish is spotted they dive at
high speed, hitting the water feet first, often fully submerging to bring up
their catch. Their barbed pads allow them to hold their victim, which they then
carry back aerodynamically, the head leading. The female is heavier than the
male, with stockier legs. She guards the nest; her mass providing coverage for
unhatched eggs and newly-hatched young. The smaller male is better suited to be
the hunter, diving for a fish, eluding Sea Gulls and carrying his catch back to
the nest.

Nests
are built high to avoid predators like raccoons. In our area, they are usually
built on man-made platforms. The bed typically consists of sticks, sod and
grasses. Ospreys tend to mate for life and have one brood a year. Eggs, of
which there are generally two to four, are hatched in sequence, usually three
to five days apart. In times of food shortages, the weakest will be sacrificed
for the strongest, usually the first born. Chicks fledge in eight weeks –
around the beginning of August, but it takes about three years to reach
maturity. Life expectancy is anywhere from ten to twenty years.

Migratory
habits are, as they are with all birds, fascinating. Alan Poole, author of the
1989 book, Ospreys, wrote of their migration from Martha’s
Vineyard. He strapped a 0.75 ounce, solar-powered satellite
transmitter to the back of a few. Cuba
and Hispaniola (the island containing Haiti
and Dominican Republic) were
the preferred destination of most, though some stopped in the Florida
Everglades and others flew on as far as South America.
One female flew the 2700 miles from the Vineyard to the rain-forest rivers in French Guiana in 13 days. The trip included layovers in Maryland, North Carolina
and the Bahamas.

The
name Osprey first appeared around 1460, according to researchers at Cornell,
presumably derived from the Medieval Latin phrase for birds of prey – avis prede. The scientific name for the
bird is Pandion haliaetus, and is of
the order Accipitriformes, which includes most of the diurnal birds of prey. Pandion comes from the mythical Greek
king of Athens.
While man can be traced back about 1.8 million years, Accipitriformes date back
44 million years.

With
a rap sheet like that, one would expect grace, majesty and beauty. And one
would not be disappointed. There is nobility in the way they patiently wait,
either perched on a pole, or in the way they soar effortlessly through the
skies. Observers note that on average it takes about twelve minutes for an
Osprey to catch a fish – a shorter time than it takes most fishermen.

Paul
Spitzer, a conservation biologist who grew up in Old Lyme, was a neighbor and
friend of Roger Tory Peterson who made his home here for almost fifty years. After
graduating from Wesleyan, he received his PhD from Cornell the year of the
first Earth Day in 1970. Conservation became both his avocation and vocation.
For forty-five years he has observed and studied Ospreys. While he spends most
of the year on the Eastern Shore, he often
returns to Old Lyme in summers.

It
is Paul Spitzer to whom I owe thanks for the nest erected in the marsh in front
of our house – a nest that was occupied within less than a day of its being
erected. As he once said, “…I think of us on a voyage of understanding.” On the
first of June he wrote us of the nests he had been watching, and of the Osprey
and their love affair with the Connecticut River
estuary: “I find spiritual freedom out here in the tideland. I have entered a
separate world: Sky so blue and crisscrossed with Osprey. A succession of males
arrive with freshly caught Menhaden hanging below in their talons: Held
parallel to the Osprey’s flight, thus streamlined. The lowering evening sun
illuminates yellow forked Menhaden tails, and blood streaming bright from talon
wounds. Arriving males hover, scream and display – which reports the direction
and species of fresh prey to others.” His words evoke the beauty and the
purpose of this estuary.

It
is that completeness – the interdependency of nature, with its necessary
cruelties, the success of evolution, man’s role in correcting past faults, so
now playing a positive role – that can be observed by those of us lucky to be
living in this place. Dr. Spitzer told me that man-made nests were put up not
only so that we could be witness to this wonder of nature, but also so that the
Osprey will know man as a non-threatening co-inhabitant.

Monday, July 13, 2015

Politics
and money go together, as the old song says, like “love and marriage.” “You
can’t have one without the other.” Cronyism, corruption and extravagance are
consequences.

The
cost of a Presidential campaign has risen ten fold over the past sixteen years.
In 2000, George Bush spent about $180 million. It has been estimated by CNN
that Hillary Clinton will spend $1.7 billion on her 2016 campaign. That
suggests the cost of running a Presidential campaign has compounded annually at
15%, while the annual inflation rate has risen by 2.1 percent. Another way of
looking at the same picture is that the Bush campaign spent roughly $3.50 for
every vote received in 2000; Mr. Obama spent about $20.00 for every vote he
received in 2012; and Mrs. Clinton, should she win in 2016, will have spent
$30.00 for every vote. The value received (unless one is in the media business)
does not warrant the moneys expended.

What
prompted these thoughts was a piece by Gary Hart in “Time.” The article was
entitled “America’s
Founding Principles are in Danger of Corruption,” a dubious title for a system
that already is corrupted. The report itself was disappointing, as it was
mainly a seductive way to segue into a diatribe against Citizen’s United.

I
agree with Mr. Hart’s iteration of the four qualities that distinguish
republican governments: sovereignty of the people; a sense of the common good;
government dedicated to the commonwealth, and resistance to corruption. I would
add the sanctity of the rule of law, property rights of individuals, majority
rule, the protection of the rights of minorities and the rights embedded in the
Bill of Rights are critical to a civil, democratic and successful society.

Also
vital to our form of government (and what is missing in today’s polarized
world) is a free and independent press. Such a press should act as a government
watchdog. It is why it was once called the “Fourth Estate.” Not so today. It
once served truth, not favorites. Eighty to ninety percent of the media leans
left. But no matter their politics, they have become advocates. The press should report news in an unbiased
way and expose corruption, regardless of where it is found.

It
is corruption that concerns Mr. Hart, and I share that concern. Corruption and
cronyism throughout our political system threaten to undue what our founders
worked so hard to create. But Citizen’s
United is not the root cause of this evil. Political corruption goes back
almost to the start of our republic. From the very beginning money and gifts
were used to purchase influence. Even Boss Tweed and Huey Long existed long
before anyone dreamed up the concept of a PAC.

Attempts
to influence decision makers are natural. Politicians wield influence and
access is valued. It is unrealistic to expect politicians to either arrive in
office pure or remain so for long. No matter what good intentions an aspiring
Congress man or woman might have, the siren songs of lobbyists are impossible
to ignore. Money will go wherever it can be effective. Every Bill that passes
through Congress has an affect on someone, some industry, or some union.
Lobbying is natural and has been around as long as our republic. It is not
going away, and it should not. Legislators do not (and cannot) operate in a
vacuum.

Every
well-intended law that has been passed to limit campaign contributions has been
undermined by clever lawyers who find exemptions and exceptions. In fact, most
have worsened the situation. McCain-Feingold may have been benignant in terms
of intent, but the consequence has been more money in politics than ever.
Direct contributions to a candidate and PACs limit the dollar amount that any
individual or entity can make. On the other hand, Leadership PACs (set up by
elected officials and Parties) and Super PACs (as long as the spending is
“independent” of the campaign) have no limits.
Those groups are required to disclose the names of all contributors
above $200.00. In contrast, 501(c)(4)s do not limit donations and worse have no
disclosure rules.

There are four simple steps that could be taken.
First, no contribution to any political campaign should be tax advantaged.
There should be no reason why a person who chooses not to contribute to a
campaign should subsidize those that do. Tax write offs for 501(c)(4) and 527
organizations (which include PACs, Super PACs and political parties) should be
disallowed. For example, neither the Sierra Club nor the NRA should be allowed
to contribute tax exempt dollars to a political campaign. If they chose to
contribute, it would have to come from donations that were not tax deductible.
Second, the names of all contributors should be disclosed. If a contribution is
made in the name of an entity, information on that entity should be disclosed,
including its principals. Voters should know who is buying influence and with
whom. Third, there should be no limits on contributions. Attempts to do so in
the past have failed miserably. And, fourth, there should be no public
financing of political campaigns. “Public financing” is an innocuous sounding
term, but it means that we, as taxpayers, are paying for the campaigns of
people with whom we disagree.

There
is one point on which everyone agrees, and that is there is too much money in
political campaigns. But everyone seems to have different ideas as to how to
correct the problem. In general, the Left feels that regulation should limit
spending, while the Right feels any such limits would violate one’s right to
speak.

It
is not Citizen’s United that is the
problem, nor is it Wall Street, rich individuals or public sector unions. The
elemental problems are the tax exempt status of so much of the money and the
secrecy that enshrouds so many of its sources.

The
elimination of the tax advantage given to donors and forcing disclosure of all
campaign gifts I suspect will do more to limit money spent than any set of
regulations. But even if it does not, it would be more honest, open and fairer.
Lawyers would be unhappy, for there would be fewer rules for them to bend in a
way favorable to their clients, but the rest of us should be happier. There is
no good answer. Money and politics cannot be separated. What we need is the
least bad answer to a problem that will never go away.

Thursday, July 9, 2015

In
the end, it would have made no difference which way Greece voted. The country is
bankrupt, not only financially, but morally and politically. They are proof
that you cannot go on spending more money than you take in. Greece is a
manifestation that redistribution policies, whether from Socialism or an overly
generous welfare state, do not work. No matter the form of government, its
costs fall on the backs of the people. In a democracy, the people can vote for
change, but when the majority receives more than they give, the end game heaves
into sight.

The
problem for the West with Greece
is less the economic consequences, or even the ideological ones, than the
geo-political changes that could evolve. Of particular concerns are the
possibility of a return to authoritarianism – either from the right or the left
– and, second, the relationship of Greece
to Russia.
Keep in mind; crises are not wasted by opportunists, and Putin is an
opportunist.

Greece’s economy is less than 2% of Europe’s,
so the effect on other nations will be limited. In severing ties with the Euro,
though, many Greeks will suffer. The economy will persist in deep recession.
But already 27% of the working population is unemployed. And 75% of those out
of work have been so for more than a year. A new currency (the old Drachma?)
will be subject to market forces that will determine its value. Nevertheless, a
Greek exit from the Euro should happen, both from the perspective of the
integrity of the Euro, but also because depreciated Greek assets will, in time,
become attractive to outside investors.

Current
investors in Greek bonds will suffer, but that is a risk all bond buyers
assume. Caveat emptor is not limited to real estate. Bond markets work most
efficiently when the threat of bankruptcy is real. German investors bought
Greek debt seemingly ignorant of the risks involved. Consequently, Greece was able
to borrow money at what proved to be below “real” market rates. Had they had to
pay fair market rates, they might have been more circumspect. As for
devaluation, Greek assets and vacations will become increasingly attractive to
non-Greeks. The Greek people will suffer, but that is already happening. The
important thing is to set the country on a course for future economic growth.

A
risk is that from the rubble a “strong man” emerges. Restoring a culture of
work and responsibility may be impossible until the final nail is driven into
the coffin of Socialism. While those of us in capitalist countries can see
opportunity when policy decisions emasculate an economy, it will be more
difficult for those born and bred into a culture of paternalism. Greece was
governed by a military junta in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. A return to such
a government is an unfortunate possibility. Also possible is that the
left-leaning Alexis Tsipras will exercise firmer control over the government
and economy.

Russia will watch developments with interest. Since the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the simultaneous break-up of Yugoslavia, The former Soviet Union has no close
allies with access to either the Adriatic or the Mediterranean.
They will be quick to seek ties with any government that may emerge. So, while
exit from the Euro is all but inevitable, Europe
should maintain close political ties to whatever government emerges. Greece, it should be remembered, has a long
history with the East, since the days when it was governed from Constantinople. It would be a mistake to let Greece fall out
of the European Union and NATO.

It
was the accumulation of debt and unfunded liabilities that brought Greece to its
knees. Its debt alone now equals two times its production capability – its GDP.
While Greece is on the
leading edge of this tide, Spain,
Portugal and Italy are not
far behind. Detroit, Puerto Rico and Illinois remind us that debt contagion is not limited to Europe. Central bankers created a “catch-22” situation.
In keeping interest rates too low for too long, they encouraged debt
accumulation on the part of governments and speculators, to a point where they
now cannot afford to raise rates.

Western Europe promoted social welfare governments in the post-War
years. Rebuilding an infrastructure that had been destroyed (with the help of
the U.S.)
allowed for sustained economic prosperity in the early years. Some nations
built successful welfare states, but most adhered to a hedonistic philosophy of
living for the day, with little concern for the future. Some were more
successful in finding the proper balance, but most placed emphasis on pleasure
rather than on effort. And, of course, ancient Athens was the home to Epicureanism. As money
began to run out, the instinct of governments with controlling interests in the
economy was to implement “austerity.” By austerity they mean continued high
taxes and starved government programs – a policy that cannot work in the real
world. What they needed to have done was cut taxes, reduce regulation and let
free markets work, but, of course, that would mean giving up control – an
anathema to bureaucrats.

The
human instinct, however, is to survive and a devalued currency will create
values – not without pain. But attractive prices, in an environment where the
rule of law prevails and investors can be assured their property will not be
nationalized, will attract investors. Tourism and vacation homes are among Greece’s
special attractions. The mainland and its islands should become more of a
destination than they now are. A Greek exit from the Euro should happen, in my
opinion, but not so from the European Union. The problem will be that the
country – like a company that has assets, but has been mismanaged – will be “in
play.” Any vacuum created by an absentee Europe or the U.S. will be filled by
Russia, who will be – if not already doing so – whispering sweet words of
comfort into the ears of a receptive Greece. In the end, democratic capitalism
is the best answer, but it is my guess that won’t happen anytime soon. Greece has
become a Greek tragedy – in this case, a self-immolation.

Monday, July 6, 2015

June
is the month – at least in the Northern Hemisphere – of the summer solstice, the
day when the sun reaches its highest point. Subsequently, the sun retreats
south. Days shorten, until six months later we experience the longest night of
the year, the winter solstice. The calendar is a reminder of the ever-changing
world in which we live.

For
Greece,
of course, the sky turned darker as the month wore on, culminating in a
decision to close banks for a week. For years, it has seemed that, ultimately,
the only answer is for Greece
to abandon the Euro and then enter detoxification. (As of early this morning,
it appears that Greece
has, with conditions, accepted the terms of its creditors.) Nevertheless, Greece is
addicted to spending what they do not have. Much of the rest of Europe is in a similar boat, but farther upstream. So is
the United States,
and we are gaining. The problem is cultural: too much dependency on the state.
Its manifestations are more debt and little or no economic growth. The example
that should be followed is the one set by Canada in the early 1990s. Finance
Minister Paul Martin laid out three principles: 1) Focus on spending cuts, not
tax increases; 2) Focus on realizable
short term goals; 3) Assume the low end of all economic forecasts. Like an alcoholic
who needs his next drink, the Greeks (like many of us) are dependent on a
welfare state – one that has run out of money.

Red
lines are drawn in shifting sand. In the case of Greece, it appears that any
decision will be deferred until after Sunday’s referendum, but default and exit
from the Euro seem likely. The ephemeral nature of red lines can also be seen
in the Iran-nuclear agreement that has been put off until next week. While the
peripatetic John Kerry scrambles hither and yon in search of the illusive grail
that is a nuclear deal, the Mullahs keep their centrifuges spinning. Iran has also been successful at incorporating Iraq into their
orbit. ISIS was busy during the month. Three
attacks on a single day marked the first anniversary of their announced
caliphate (June 29, 2014). Sixty-seven people died in those attacks. In France, the man
killed at an American owned chemical company had his severed head impaled on a
post outside the factory gates. In a bit of good news, Turkey’s
President Recep Erdogan’s party lost its majority in Parliament. During the
month, the Kurds, who were principally responsible for Mr. Erdogan’s defeat,
also proved to be the best fighters against ISIS.
They took back two Syrian towns, Tai Abyad on June 16 and Ain Issa on June 23.
While the U.S.
has stepped up support for the Kurds, it is doing too little.

In
early June, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) acknowledged that Chinese
hackers got into the personal files of “at least” four million current and
former federal employees. That number was later revised to eighteen million. In
Congressional testimony, it was disclosed that the number could reach
thirty-two million. Back in November, according to an article in the New
York Times, the inspector general at the OPM described the agency’s
computer security system as “a Chinese hackers dream.” It was. (More on this in
a later Thought of the Day.)

The
Supreme Court was busy announcing decisions they had made in the session just
ended. In a 6-3 decision, the Affordable Care Act will continue. While I believe
ObamaCare is a white elephant that will result in less medical care at higher
costs, change to the law should come through the legislative process, not the
courts. In the matter of gay marriage, the decision was 5-4 in allowing gay
marriage throughout the United
States. If there has been, as Edward Luce of
the Financial Times put it, “a vertiginous
shift in U.S. society” toward gay marriage why not let such laws be decided in
legislatures, as the Constitution demands, rather than accepting the judgment
of nine people? It is ironic that many on the Left feel that traditional
marriage – that is a union between a man and a woman – is too confining, but
that marriage between two people of the same sex is necessary! Marriage, it
seems to me, is almost always a good thing, no matter the participants, but
especially when children are involved – both natural and adopted. In both
instances, the Court, it seems to this non-lawyer, assumed the mantle of
legislator, rather than adjudicator. On the penultimate day of the month, the
Court voted 5-4 against the EPA, in a decision we should celebrate, at least
those of us who care about the cost of energy.

The
President did get two bills passed, both with the help of Republicans: the
re-authorization of the Patriot Act and fast-track authority that should allow
passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Speaking of Republicans, there are
now fourteen announced candidates, and two likely, but unannounced – Scott
Walker and John Kasich. Of the sixteen, eight are current or former governors;
five are current or former Senators; there is one doctor, one business woman and
one clown. Indicative of the reach of the Republican brand, the candidates
include two Hispanic-Americans, one woman, one African-American and one
Indian-American. As a group, they are much younger than their Democrat
counterparts. This is not your father’s Republican Party. Democrats seem intent
on nominating Hillary Clinton, despite her dubious character and propensity to
lie. Nevertheless, and perhaps just for kicks, three other Democrats have
announced: Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chaffee and Michael O’Malley. Should Joe
Biden toss his hat into the ring, he and Bernie Sanders will be among the
oldest men ever to run for President.

Nine
African-Americans were killed in a horrific shooting in the EmanuelAMEChurch in Charleston.
They were slain by a deranged, 21-year-old White racist. The most remarkable
aftermath were the unrehearsed words of forgiveness from the family members of
those slain, in an electrifying display of Christian charity. While the
President gave a moving eulogy for the pastor, Clementa Pinckney, he should
have let someone with a better voice lead the congregation in singing “Amazing
Grace.”

The
media had a field day (or rather ‘three weeks’) with the escape of two murderers
from the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora,
New York. Thirteen hundred
officers, many with dogs, in hundreds of cars, jeeps, ATVs and even helicopters
pursued them through the Adirondack woods. The
cost of stopping them was the price of a few bullets. But tracking them cost
millions of dollars. Listening to myriad excuses every evening on the news was
almost comedic. I am glad that one is dead and the other has been caught. But
the real question: Why were they allowed to live the lives they did in what is
supposed to be a high-security prison?

The
problems with Greece
reverberated across financial markets, with stocks falling as the month ended.
It is not so much the importance of Greece to economic growth. Their
economy represents about 1.3% of the Eurozone’s economy. It is the unknowns
associated with default and what exiting the Euro would mean. The yield on the
U.S. Ten-year had been rising during the month, but fears brought buyers in as
the month ended and the yield fell 140 basis points between the Friday the 26th
and Monday the 29th. Gold, refusing to play its role as a “safe
haven,” was up six dollars on Monday, but still below where it had been a week
earlier. The Shanghai Index had a tough couple of weeks. The index is up 25% year-to-date,
but has declined 20% since mid June.

Union
defenders of the status quo are doing their best to disrupt disruptive
technologies. Organized labor got their allies in the New York City Council to
pass legislation that would force non-unionized car wash owners to obtain
$150,000 indemnity bonds in order to operate. If the legislation sticks, it
would effectively shut them down. The California Labor Commission ruled that an
Uber driver is an employee, not an independent contractor. If that ruling
sticks, it would be a fatal blow to companies like Uber and Lyft, as well as a
defeat for consumers. Creative destruction may have some unpleasant consequences,
but competition benefits consumers, and it is the way technologies advance and economies
grow.

A
year ago California Chrome won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. At the Belmont, in June, he
lost. The last horse to win the Triple Crown was Affirmed in 1978. There had
been a dry spell before – between Citation in 1948 and Secretariat in 1973 –
but that was only twenty-five years. American Pharaoh was not the fastest
Triple Crown winner, but he won the Belmont
going away. The Chicago Blackhawks won their third Stanley Cup in the past six
years, and the Golden State Warriors defeated LeBron James and the Cavaliers
for the NBA championship. Serena Williams and Stan Wawrinka were winners at the
French Open. Jordan Spieth won the U.S. Open. He has now won two of the four
major golf tournaments to be played this year. He won the Masters in April and
will try for a “grand slam” at the British Open and the PGA Championship. The
last player to have won all championships in one year was Bobby Jones in 1930.

Like
most months, June had its quirky moments. Indicative as to how far we have
traveled as a society, Rachel Dolezal, the head of the NAACP in Spokane, Washington,
was outed by her parents for being White. In a front page article, the scornful
New York Times made much of the fact that anti-government, white racists
have killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists – 48 versus 26 – in the
fourteen years since 9/11. The article was conveniently posted after the Charleston shootings. No
mention was made of the number of terrorist plots that have been stopped. But
most egregious was their not putting those deaths into perspective. In the same
fourteen years, approximately 180,000 people were murdered in the U.S., of which
about 50,000 were Black-on-Black killings. Our focus should be on families and
schools. Cultural dislocations breed despair, distrust, envy and hatred.
Despite college men being guilty until proven innocent in campus rapes, women
applauded the possible FDA approval for a female “Viagra.” In Japan, a judge ruled that having an
affair with someone who is married cannot be considered adultery if it involves
the exchange of money.

June
is a month of anniversaries. Two of our children celebrated their wedding
anniversaries this month. Eight hundred years ago, the Magna Carta was signed.
Two hundred years ago Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo. One hundred and fifty years ago, “Alice in Wonderland” was
published. Seventy-one years ago allied forces landed in France. Seventy
years ago, the United States Marines, after a two-month battle, captured the island of Okinawa. On June 3, 1965, Edward Higgins
White became the first American to walk in space.